tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434907827235442244.post2829683086233750849..comments2017-03-07T19:17:20.088-08:00Comments on profserious: ImbalancesAnthony Finkelsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07234578498269328238noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434907827235442244.post-64859766883320881132014-08-29T00:08:50.865-07:002014-08-29T00:08:50.865-07:00Now I see the reason why the Da Vinci code can not...Now I see the reason why the Da Vinci code can not be decoded in the novel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434907827235442244.post-45247030237170213182014-08-28T23:53:19.445-07:002014-08-28T23:53:19.445-07:00It makes me to rethink about the significances of ...It makes me to rethink about the significances of compulsory school education that has been implemented. Whether it is a right decision to enlighten the whole human race to achieve a universal good outcome, or just to reserve it to a minor group of people?<br /><br />Or assume it is a right decision, whether we have done it in a right way. <br /><br />I would say that we have sacrificed the field of elementary school education (primary school and high school) for testbeds and so far, the results are not good, frankly speaking. What have you got far? Chaos.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434907827235442244.post-9536566587841622912014-08-12T01:19:50.487-07:002014-08-12T01:19:50.487-07:00TRAC can be interpreted differently too by looking...TRAC can be interpreted differently too by looking at hours actually worked rather than the official interpretation which just looks at fractions. I bet you could read from it that most academics spend a fraction of a full time job on teaching which corresponds to the teaching proportion of university income, or more - and overall, they spend more than a full time job. Thus, you could argue that it&#39;s not teaching but academics&#39; free time which sponsors research, an indication of dedication, expectations, and unbalanced incentives ... Eerke Boitenhttp://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/~eab2/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434907827235442244.post-74126070382535779352014-08-11T10:01:58.609-07:002014-08-11T10:01:58.609-07:00My understanding here (USA) is that increasing tui...My understanding here (USA) is that increasing tuitions have not resulted in much if any decrease in minority attendance. It is just a transfer of costs onto the middle class (instead of paying tax, they pay tuition). I suspect the lowering of tuition for overseas students would just be a similar subsidy for those students already wealthy enough to take extra prep courses, hire lawyers and consultants for the application, and so on. If the goal is to find and recruit more of the international talent I think the effort will have to be considerably more involved. Think of the intellectually capable people who never get to advanced classes in high school. neilhttp://neilernst.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434907827235442244.post-43874862561665338912014-08-11T02:20:36.998-07:002014-08-11T02:20:36.998-07:00Mark Anderson wrote &quot;Does UCL really need to ...Mark Anderson wrote &quot;Does UCL really need to occupy incredibly expensive premises in central London?&quot; Undoubtedly the premises have a huge potential market value, but does this make them &#39;expensive&#39; to UCL in any way? Is there any evidence that industry is paying for UCL&#39;s location? And are these premises any more &#39;expensive&#39; than those of the other academic institutions including teaching hospitals in London?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6434907827235442244.post-15572860896113147032014-08-10T12:21:34.870-07:002014-08-10T12:21:34.870-07:00My experience of teaching LLM students at UCL in t...My experience of teaching LLM students at UCL in the last 3 years is that most of them (75%?) are the &quot;globally talented&quot;. Reducing overseas fees seems likely to result in a greater percentage. Perhaps this is part of being a world-leading university. <br /><br />The &quot;cost&quot; of research depends to a large extent on how one allocates overheads. I am guessing that property costs form part of this allocation. Does UCL really need to occupy incredibly expensive premises in central London? If it does (and it cannot up-sticks like the New York Giants moving to San Francisco), is it right that industry should pay for the location? Or for any aspect of infrastructure that is really based on the teaching or reputational mandate rather than research needs? I wonder how subtly the cost base has been calculated. As a former employee of a privatised research establishment that had overhead rates of over 200% (until 400m hydrodynamic testing facilities were closed when the land they were on was sold to Tesco), I wonder whether, if the cost base were subject to rigorous commercial scrutiny, we might find that some world-beating &quot;white elephant&quot; facilities can be dispensed with in the interests of competitiveness.Mark Andersonhttp://www.ipdraughts.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com